By Ben JerveyAs a direct result of the Bakken shale oil boom, more crude oil was spilled from rail cars last year than in the previous four decades combined. That’s according to a McClatchy analysis of federal data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which governs rail transport of liquid fuels like crude.The fireball that followed the derailment and explosion of two trains, one carrying Bakken crude oil, on Dec. 30, 2013, outside Casselton, ND. Photo credit: PHMSAThe analysis revealed more than 1.15 million gallons of crude spilled in 2013, considerably more than the 800,000 gallons spilled from 1975 (when the government started collecting data on spills) to 2012.The rail industry likes to boast a 99.99 percent success rate in delivery shipments without incident, and that number remained consistent in 2013, with 1.15 million of the roughly 11.5 billion gallonsshipped by rail being spilled. What did change was the volume of actual crude being shipped by rail.As we’ve covered before, there is a massive boom in crude-by-rail throughout North America, with a nearly 2400-percent increase in crude railcar shipments in five short years from 2008-2012. As it turned out, 2013 was another record-setting year.These charts from the Association of American Railroads and the U.S. Energy Information Association show the trend pretty clearly: (view the charts and read the full article by clicking here)

New recommendations for oil train safety issued Thursday by the National Transportation Safety Board reinforced the lack of readiness in the Pacific Northwest and the country for risks posed by oil trains carrying potentially explosive crude from North Dakota.In 2013, at least 110 oil trains carrying North Dakota crude passed through Portland and rural towns on the Columbia River en route to a terminal in Port Westward, near Clatskanie. State regulators were caught flatfooted by their arrival and only recently began to plan for the risks oil trains introduced. The NTSB made it clear that similar deficiencies exist at the federal level, exposing local taxpayers – not railroads – to significant liabilities."The large-scale shipment of crude oil by rail simply didn't exist 10 years ago, and our safety regulations need to catch up with this new reality," Deborah A.P. Hersman, the NTSB chairwoman, said in a statement.Here are two key takeaways from the NTSB’s recommendations.1. If a catastrophic oil train spill happens today in Oregon or Washington, taxpayers will get stuck with the cleanup bill.Because of a loophole, railroads aren’t required to have detailed oil spill response plans to deal with worst-case disasters, the NTSB said in a letter recommending reforms.Railroads maintain basic spill plans. But they aren’t required to plan for catastrophes like the July 6 oil train accident in Quebec that killed 47 people, burned down part of a town and spilled 1.6 million gallons of crude. Nor are they required to demonstrate that they have sufficient caches of emergency equipment to contain disastrous spills that followed explosions in North Dakota and Alabama last year, the NTSB said.Because stricter requirements aren’t mandated, “the burden of responding to an accident and remediating the aftermath is still left with communities,” the NTSB wrote.Federal law requires detailed, worst-case emergency plans only when shipping more than 42,000 gallons of oil in a single package. Although oil trains in Oregon carry hundreds of thousands of gallons in each trainload, the oil is shipped in separate cars that each hold less than 42,000 gallons, allowing railroads to avoid that legal requirement, the NTSB said.2. The NTSB said railroads should reroute oil trains around sensitive and populated areas where feasible. But that won’t make any difference along a key route now carrying oil trains in Oregon. Or one proposed in Vancouver, Wash.Oil trains moving North Dakota crude currently travel through rural cities like Rainier, Scappoose and St. Helens en route to a terminal in Port Westward, near Clatskanie. That rail line bisects a main street in Rainier, passes schools in Scappoose and travels less than 100 feet from homes in St. Helens.

It’s the only option. Despite the NTSB’s recommendations, which were endorsed by the railroad industry, there isn’t another rail line that avoids those towns.The oil train terminal proposed in Vancouver, Wash., is in a similar situation. The rail line that will feed it comes through residential neighborhoods. But there’s not another connection that doesn’t pass homes.

A string of train accidents involving crude oil shipments in the U.S. and Canada is causing uneasiness in Spokane and other communities bisected by railways. And the safety of rail cars and hazardous cargo is under intensifying scrutiny.With the number of oil trains from the upper Great Plains expected to increase through the Spokane area, the risk of spills and potentially deadly fires is a growing concern, City Council President Ben Stuckart said.“These are almost moving bombs,” Stuckart said. “They’re carrying highly explosive material.”Spokane is a pinch point for rail traffic through the region. The tracks for BNSF Railway Co., a major oil hauler, cross the Spokane River, pass near schools and cut through downtown beside retail centers, office towers, hospitals and Interstate 90.At least one fully loaded oil train – which can stretch as long as 130 cars – snakes through Spokane each day. But with West Side refineries and terminals ramping up to receive more of the black bounty, these shipments could become far more frequent.Federal officials recently warned that oil from the booming Bakken shale field in North Dakota and Montana is more flammable than previously known, raising the anxiety level.Stuckart wants city leaders to support tougher federal safety standards for moving crude oil by rail, including the use of new tank cars that can better survive derailments and lower train speeds in metro areas.In the city’s downtown core, freight train speeds drop to as low as 10 to 25 mph, according to BNSF Railway Co.Local residents have been focused on harmful dust blowing off coal trains from Wyoming and Montana, but oil by rail is a greater worry, Stuckart said. “I find that this has now become a bigger issue if we look at the potential harm in a derailment accident,” he said.As many as 22 full and empty oil trains a day could soon traverse Northwest railways, according to a recent market analysis by Sightline Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Seattle. That’s based on 100-car trains with each car holding 700 barrels of crude.Major spills and fires are rare on North American rail lines, and the industry says it’s pumping billions of dollars into upgrades and safety improvements.“We invest in training, technology, track improvements, equipment – all of this leads to a safe railroad,” said Gus Melonas, a BNSF spokesman in Seattle. “One incident is too many, and we learn from all of these that occurred. … Our goal is not to have any incidents.”Four oil-related rail accidents since last summer – two in the past three weeks – have renewed calls for safety improvements. Railroad and oil industry executives said Thursday they’d take steps to reduce accidents, including analyzing the risks of oil trains and maybe slowing down the trains in populated areas.On Dec. 30, a BNSF train carrying crude oil crashed into a derailed train in North Dakota, triggering explosions and a fire that prompted about 1,400 residents to flee a nearby town. Eight days later, a train loaded with crude oil and propane derailed in Canada’s New Brunswick province, leading to another evacuation.What truly rattled rail towns across the continent was the crash and horrific explosion last July that killed 47 people and destroyed 30 buildings in the center of Lac-Megantic, Quebec.“I don’t think it’s being hyperbolic or fear-mongering to say we should be really worried about that,” said Eric de Place, policy director at Sightline. “I think the potential loss of life is so staggering that we need to be extremely concerned.”

Oil trains traveling through the Inland Northwest cross Lake Pend Oreille and pass over the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The rail route also follows portions of the Spokane River, Hangman Creek and the Columbia River.Though recent news has focused on fiery derailments of oil trains, the potential for spills into the region’s lakes and rivers is also a concern.Dale Jensen, spills manager for the Washington Department of Ecology, said oil trains are a rapidly emerging issue for the agency, which was set up to respond to spills from pipelines and ships.Oil-by-rail shipments present a conundrum for Washington because states can’t regulate the railroads. That’s handled at the federal level through the Federal Railroad Administration.“We regulate ships that bring crude and refined oil into our state,” Jensen said. “We regulate the refineries and oil transfer stations. We regulate the petroleum pipelines throughout the state, but we don’t regulate the railroad.”The Department of Ecology has requested $650,000 in the governor’s supplemental budget to finance an oil spill risk-reduction package. If approved by the Legislature, the money would be used to hire five people; three would develop geographic response plans, identifying what types of environmental, historic and cultural resources would be at risk from an oil rail spill, and what resources exist to contain those spills.A fourth hire would work on risks to Washington’s marine waters from an anticipated increase in vessel traffic carrying crude and refined product to other markets. The last position would be a rail expert.“That individual would have or develop a very good technical understanding of railroads, and will help inform policy decisions focusing on spill prevention and safe practices of moving oil by rail through the state,” Jensen said.The $650,000 would come from the state’s oil spill prevention fund, which is financed by a 5-cent tax on each barrel of crude oil that enters Washington by vessel.State officials are concerned that revenue for the oil spill prevention fund will decrease in future years as oil trains outpace vessel shipments of crude. Jensen said the state doesn’t have the authority to tax barrels of crude shipped by rail

Do you take sugar in your morning coffee? How about 4-methylcyclohexane methanol? A large spill of a chemicals used to remove impurities from coal occurred Thursday in Charleston, WV, contaminating the Elk River less than a mile upstream of the intake for the state’s largest drinking water treatment plant. As many as 300,000 West Virginia residents in nine counties have been told not to bathe, cook or wash clothes using their tap water, and numerous schools, hospitals and nursing homes, restaurants and other businesses are without water. President Obama and West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin declared a state of emergency today.

For some, the warnings may have come too late. The Charleston Area Medical Center reported this morning that it had already begun to treat people complaining of contamination-related illnesses. By late Friday, The Guardianreported that 671 people were so ill that they called into the poison control center with reports of vomiting, dizziness, nausea, headaches, diarrhea, reddening skin, itches and rashes. Responding to citizen reports about a licorice odor in downtown Charleston, staff from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection‘s Division of Air Quality discovered the foaming agent 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, leaking from a 35,000-gallon storage tank into the Elk River. The facility is owned by Freedom Industries a subsidiary of Etowah River Terminal, LLC. The spill had not been reported by the company. It’s still unclear how much of the chemical spilled into the river or how long the advisory will last.Convenience and grocery stores have sold out of water. After reports that people had begun looting bottled water, armed National Guard troops had to escort and stand guard over a truck carrying clean water to a distribution point set up in the Charleston Civic Center.“It’s like a zombie apocalypse here,” said Charleston resident Barbara Paxton. “The scary thing is at 10:30 a.m. yesterday, I read online that there was a smell in the area, and they were ‘investigating.’ I did not know until 5 in the evening that I was not supposed to use the water.”According to Cindy Rank, West Virginia Headwaters Waterkeeper:“[w]hat is … astounding is that the chemicals leaking from this facility are used in the coal washing process at sites throughout West Virginia—sites where nearby communities which depend on local sources of surface and ground water are frequently told the chemicals being used are harmless, or [no worse than] commonly used household products. People in these communities live in fear that accidental releases of such chemicals will destroy the water in wells and springs they use daily and it appears their fears are well founded. This situation unacceptable.”“Clean water is essential for life. We cannot cut corners in ensuring that our drinking water supply is protected,” said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. “There is too much at stake—our health, our economic stability, our confidence in water security. We hope that once the immediate crisis phase is over, serious thought will go into meaningful reforms and investment in protecting our rivers and streams that are our lifeline.”The question remains, who will foot the bill for the cleanup and the economic losses caused by the spill?Residents are being told that they are at risk, but solutions seem limited to allowing the river to “flush” the chemical out of the area.“It’s in my hot water tank. Am I going to have an extremely large water bill because I’ve got to let everything run? And if it does run, is there going to be residue in my pipes?,” asked Paxton. She is not only concerned for her community, but for what may be happening downstream. “My concern is that it’s the Elk River, Ohio River, Mississippi River, ocean. What are they telling people downstream?”Our continuing dependence on fossil fuels as a source of “cheap” energy has many costs that are not reflected in our power bills and prices at the pump. In addition to billions of dollars in environmental damage, the Charleston spill illustrates another example of the coal industry imposing the costs of its inherently dirty practices on Americans, not to mention poisoning the water supplies of hundreds of thousands of people. This spill demonstrates yet again that “clean coal” is a dirty lie.“At times like these assurances that public water supplies are guaranteed safer and cleaner than the local streams, springs and wells many of us rely on daily sound as empty as the wind whistling through the trees,” said Rank.

SPOKANE, WA--The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss, allowing the Clean Water Act case to proceed against BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) for coal contamination of U.S. waterways. The Sierra Club, Puget Soundkeeper, Columbia Riverkeeper, Spokane Riverkeeper, RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Friends of the Columbia Gorge, filed the lawsuit on July 24, 2013, after finding substantial amounts of coal in and along several Washington waterways near BNSF rail lines. A similar case is also pending before the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

According to sworn testimony by BNSF Vice President of Transportation, Gregory Fox, "BNSF estimates that up to 500 pounds of coal dust may be lost from the top of each car." The company currently sends four uncovered coal trains through the state every day, each with an average of 120 rail cars. Based on the company's figures, BNSF's trains lose an estimated 240,000 pounds of coal dust along its route daily.

"This victory is the first step in holding BNSF accountable for their continual pollution of our waterways," said Cesia Kearns of the Sierra Club. "The court's decision to move the case forward is a step in the right direction to stop coal—and its toxic associates, lead, arsenic, and mercury—from further poisoning our fish, our water, and our families. We take these threats seriously, and after today’s court decision we hope BNSF finally will too."

The conservation groups point to BNSF's long history of violating the Clean Water Act, which plainly states that dumping of any kind into a U.S. waterway without what is known as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, is a violation of federal law. Each violation of the Clean Water Act carries a fine of $37,500, and the plaintiffs assert that every rail car that loses coal is considered a unique violation - a hefty number when considering four trains a day, at 120 cars each travel through Washington.

"BNSF should focus on cleaning up its act instead of facing substantial fines for polluting America's rivers," said Morgan Wyenn, attorney with NRDC. "We're committed to holding BNSF accountable for its violations of the Clean Water Act and protecting our waterways from toxic coal dust."

The implications of the case are monumental, as the Northwest has become ground zero in the fight to stop three proposed coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon. If built, Washington communities like Spokane would see an increase of 42 additional uncovered coal trains per day. Residents already experiencing the results of four uncovered daily coal trains say that they hope that this lawsuit will teach BNSF a lesson in corporate responsibility.

"BNSF's plans to increase its daily coal train traffic by more than ten times the current amount is a testament to how important it is that they swiftly and responsibly find a solution to their coal pollution problems before further damaging our precious waterways, like the Spokane River," said Bart Mihailovich, director of Spokane Riverkeeper. "If they want to continue to be in the risky business of shipping coal, they need to assume responsibility for all of the costs that go along with it. Washingtonians are fed up with subsidizing their dangerous operations with the health of our families and communities."

“We hope that BNSF will start taking their coal dust pollution problem seriously instead of looking for loopholes,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper, an organization that works to reduce toxic pollution and protect salmon in the Columbia River. “It’s time to put an end to illegal pollution and work to restore our waterways.”

BNSF is the second largest coal shipper in the nation, shipping coal through 28 states and near countless bodies of water. The original Clean Water suit was filed against BNSF in Washington’s Western District on June 5, 3013.

"This milestone in our case sends a clear message to BNSF and the coal companies that communities along the rail line value clean water and corporate accountability over the profits of big business," said Crina Hoyer, executive director of RE Sources for Sustainable Communities.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt, P.C. of Eugene, OR, Andrea Rodgers Harris of Seattle, WA, Jessica Yarnall Loarie of the Sierra Club Law Program, and David Pettit and Morgan Wyenn of the Natural Resources Defense Council.